I loved James' reaction, just the 'but why... why though' vibe. But seriously Dael, you need an exorcism. That thing has gotta be a night hag’s voodoo doll or something.
As a DM who had a monk player in a party of non monks, the power imbalance was obvious, especially if they couldn't take a short rest after 1/2 combats. The stunning strike is whatever, but being able to do so many cool maneuvers and just making them better with ki is really going to boost the monk
The monk's new features seem a lot better to realize the fantasy of a hero who trained to be fast and use their own bodies in defensive and offensive ways. It was lagging behind mechanically and that was improved. Simple as that. Also it sounds a lot more fun than before. About the deflect attack feature, maybe the first few times it's used PCs will think a bit more, but as they get used to the feature I doubt it will slow the game more. Plus monk players will have more fun and the potential for more group fun is increased, since the very description of a monk deflecting in battle can be awesome. Of course, if the group is the maximizer type none of this matters and everything will be about numbers and perfect strategy anyway.
Personally I’m really happy with the monk changes. I’ve always thought deflect missiles should work for melee attacks. It fits my idea of the fantasy much better. I hear what you’re saying in potentially making the turn longer, but a monk had such little complexity that I don’t think it’s a big add. Their turns are still super fast compared to every other class.
Could not disagree more on monk. The new changes are absolutely better than old 2014 monk. The nerf to stunning strike hurts, but if it's the cost for the rest of the class actually working well and being interesting then I'm fine with that. I also fail to see how a reaction to reduce damage would significantly increase turn time and slow down the game, as 5E monks usually have extremely short turn times and even with this change are definitly still going to have shorter turns that most spellcasters.
I had just about abandoned an entire rework of 5e ive been working on over the last 18 months, until i saw this. I just thought there may not have been apetite for a custom build class system and the abolishment of Levels being replaced by a power score. I literally thousands of pages of the RPG that I just though wasnt worth going ahead with, with MCDM and DC20 and One Dnd being released. But appears where some others have missed the mark, I may have hit it on the mark while remaining completely compatible with 5e and One Dnd. My Faith has been restored in my project, thank you
Yeah, Shadow of the Weird Wizard handles spell casting even better than SotDL and fits right into the heroic fantasy niche of D&D, too. I'm so confused it doesn't have more buzz!
Agree with Sean re the new fantasy game. Just have traits that you can select. Doesn't mean a particular GM couldn't have archetypes, these could then just be lists of selected traits you take at specific levels (this is how the system I writing myself is happening)
My first DND character was a monk, pre Tasha's so I was locked into racial ability scores. I played an Orc because I thought they were neat. I had a few 14s and maybe a 16 in my core ability scores. I missed a lot, went down every combat, and overall couldn't really do anything. The only time I did well with him was a bunch of crits on a flurry right before he died permanently. I never landed a successful stunning strike. He died at level 7 during the fight that brought us to level 8
Unsatisfying failure is a frustrating problem because it doesn't seem like a hard solution to conceive or implement. The lack of something happening in human perception is anathema to happiness. Customers report higher satisfaction when waiting in the same or longer lines if there is some interaction/progress in their perception. Just make SOMETHING happen on failures in all cases. Either a "failure token" type mechanic/resource or just eliminate null results from abilities. Negative results that penalize the player might even be received better.
8:35 if you have a whole monk party, the problems aren’t obvious. But they are compounded upon with other classes in the party, because monks can’t compete in the damage front. They can, however, perform interesting non combat maneuvers. Unfortunately, many games don’t have anything interesting to do that’s not killing monsters.
The problem with monk has, for several editions, always been ribbon abilities. They get "keyword" class features at almost every level, but the early level features are all things other classes get to do for free while the monk has to spend points. The mid level features are things other classes got five to ten levels earlier. Then, all the late level features are either ribbon abilities, 2nd level spells that might as well be ribbon abilities, or actually thematic and flavorful high level spells that are locked behind half their points to use. Want to fix the monk? Nerf or get rid of stunning strike, take the ki point costs off all the base class features, and move features other classes get at level 3 up the level chart so monks get them before level 17.
i think shawn over estimates how much time these new abilities will add. they replace abilities that took a lot of time. like deflect missiles was a really weird ability, always have to look it up to make sure im using it right. letting monks shove/grapple with unarmed attack is just the same as doing it with an attack action that's already in the rules. sometimes the new rules will potentially make the turns longer but there are other factors to think about. like what rules are they replacing? do the new rules make those classes more likely to be played? like maybe the new monk players would of played casters which also make turns take longer. this is a recurring complaint when talking about the new rules, i get you guys dont have time to go super deep on these rule changes but if it's gonna be the same complaints every time without deeper thought, id rather you just skip it
^^^^ This. They added some, and they've streamlined others. The game doesn't look like it will be taking any longer than it already does, or any quicker really.
Shawn is heavily on the side of keeping mechanics as simple as possible as his favored style of game and not particularly into crunchy tactical combat, though I don't think he's opposed to it. Honestly D&D is not his ideal game by any means. I think a simpler, more narrative oriented game is more his flavor in the same way Ben always gravitates to all things grim, dark, and gritty. Having said that I do feel like the new content is biased towards players and in some cases does complicate the DM's job maybe a bit more than necessary, though there have been improvements for the DM in other areas. We'll have to wait and see.
@@MannonMartin Shawn's preference is perfectly valid. He is an experienced dnd game designer though. So when he makes a claim that the new rules are going to slow things down even more without taking into consideration other factors, like how much a class is played, old complicated rules being simplified, etc, it's not a very good opinion. the new content is biased towards players, theyve been heavily focused on the players handbook. once the dmg and monster manual come out, itll be easier to tell if theyve made it easier for DM's or not.
@@TonyRobetson Of course Shawn's preferences are valid. I was not suggesting otherwise, merely pointing out his particular point of view and how that tends to color his reaction to WotC's changes as any of our personal preferences ultimately will. As for player facing vs DM facing rules I don't think we actually have to wait for the DMG at all, because the actual core game rules are all in the PHB. The DMG is more of a guide and set of tools optionally available to the DM. The game rules themselves are mostly in the PHB because both the DM and players need a common set of expectations, and WotC doesn't waste pages reprinting the same content in the DMG for the most part. So we should see more soon when the NDA on the preview copies of the PHB is lifted on August 1st. I have seen that there actually are lots of DM facing changes in addition to the player facing stuff, so it could actually be pretty balanced even if they left in a few abilities that are biased towards players. Overall I think it's fine, and it's not really DM's vs players. Many of the changes are great for both players and DMs.
@@MannonMartin i said Shawn's views are valid because i was agreeing with you and to try to make it clear that i wasnt against his views in general, just some of his criticisms
On the discussion with the "speed" of combat: Shawn talked about the number of considerations per moment increasing, and that making combat slower. While I understand the point, I actually like the increased engagement it causes, because you feel excited about using all your options. However, it does mean that if it's not a player's turn they have to wait around, making the length of combat feel slow. A way to design abilities to alleviate this issue could be giving all characters reactive abilities that help other players on their turn or when things happen to them. In my experience, my party mates feel engaged when everyone can contribute on a turn. Sometimes with abilities, but also just like, discussion. We all talk about what to do on a turn and provide input on tactical options, without forcing a player to play a certain way. This makes the long-ass combats feel eventful, and not boring.
I think the point on stunning strike was all wrong. The slow+ effect on a fail is part of a nerf to the ability, not a buff or trying to remove a null result. In 2014, one used to be able to make 4 stunning strikes a round and churn through legendary resistance. The slow+ is merely a consolation prize by comparison.
Speaking as a DM, monks felt not strong enough to add extra creatures to encounters, but too broken to only have one creature. It might feel bad as a player, but it was bad design for combat when you can effectively permanently stop the boss from doing anything while everyone attacks with advantage. So nerfing it was 100% the right play, and making sure the ki point wasn’t “wasted” ultimately makes the monk not feel as Ability score dependent to be okay.
It was a lateral move. Monks can nova and burn all their Ki for a Great moment or a giant nothing burger moment and then have no more ki and suck till the next rest. This means you can't break an encounter on a success but totally waste a turn and ALL your resources on a failure. This evens things out. It needs the encounter breaking win and buffs the feels bad failure condition
19:00 James, carrying the banner for DH! I totally agree with him. And, with DH, because there is no set turn order, if someone totally fails they can act again (with the consent of their teammates)!
I love Shawn, but the Monk was not fine. It was absolutely terrible. The problems were very real. The new Monk is much, much better. It can now be played alongside the other classes at higher levels without making the player feel useless. It can now actually do the things it was intended to do all these years.
@@KamasiFitzgeraldSean always starts from "what do the players want" and if what the players really want is to stun enemies and feel very powerful as the players can act but the enemies cannot rather than have a more fair tactical combat then that's the game that that table should play
@@torinmccabe sure, I guess? Those tables are of course free to use the 2014 monk. Me and my table are absolutely loving the more tactical monk we saw in the play tests. There's truly no comparison for us, and as we've discussed it at length there's been not even an ounce of regret or nostalgia for the old monk, so it was surprising to hear anyone go to bat for it
In a party of all monks, they are fine. The DM knows about stunning, and it's like having a party of wizards in the sense of tons of hard CC. And they aren't playing the weekend class in the party
I have 8 to 10 players so the "wait what's happening now" is real. The only solution i have found is to have dynamic enemies that can attack them at any moment.
As someone who played a monk from 1 to 20 across, 2 years, these changes are great. I had to find my own ways to keep up to every other character in the party. Nothing in my kit was enough for combat. Stunning strike did nothing often. Damage was bad. I had to get rare magic items to keep my gameplay even vaguely powerful. I leaned into movement to try and keep some utility.
@6:00 Who can say? The historical Record! You can't hide behind your meditative "child of peace" state! You know what you did!!! @9:00 Feel bad moments? Yes for the Monk. If you made the tactical decision to unload as much of your Ki as possible to get that stun and it didn't happen because of Legendary Resistance or even Dice rolls, yes. That is a Feel Bad Moment (that extends to rest of this combat and the next combat because I have no resources left). And I know DM's are like Stunning Strike is too much, but frankly, it's not, unless you have more than one monk in the party. I'm pissed off that we don't have Damage on a save any more - that would have been easier than what they decided to do. That would justify all the Save for Half spells out there (because that is NOT a feel bad moment). @13:00 New version Stunning Strike should have been damage on save just like all the other spells like it... Justify the "Save for Half" mechanic on all those spells. Imagine all those save or NOTHING cantrips like Word of Radiance or Sacred Flame that would at least do SOMETHING. We even have weapons that SOME do damage on a Miss now (Weapon Mastery)! Think about that healer that did Word of Radiance in Deathhouse while surrounded by Shadows and NONE of them took damage and the Healer is DOWN! Half an hour later your Strahd campaign is over due to TPK. @23:00 Sub 5th level monk is Under Powered compared to the RANGER (not even a GloomStalker). That should tell you everything! The problem is it's not limited to sub 5th level and this has been proven on spreadsheets!
The ironic thing is that, if D&D 2024 was a video game, I think it’d have the feeling of a live service moving into a “so powerful that we speed clear everything instantly” mode, but because it’s not, that’s all just “more stuff that’ll take longer to resolve”.
I really like the new monk? It: -does a little more damage constantly. -can do it's Cool Stuff more often (both with more DPs and more flexible use of the Deflect ability). -is more consistently mobile so you don't need to multiclass rogue -can ACTUALLY remove the Charmed condition now (that feature was nigh useless before because it required an action and most abilities that caused you to become Charmed also required you to use your Action on XYZ). -gets meaningfully better at Level 10 rather than falling behind the other martials. -isn't tactically obligated to spend all its resources on stunning strike. Which really covers most of my criticisms of the class as it previously stood (subclasses aside and they look much better too). I know it was previously (and may still be) technically underpowered, but unlike the ranger it at least felt very cool to play and got some sick moments that honestly made it feel more fun than more technically powerful classes like Fighter or Barbarian, and this new version looks to have made those moments more common and more impactful.
I had a game with 2 players. One session BOTH had trouble rolling higher than 8. It made a battle against 6 skeletons stretch out into nearly an hour. And they almost died. The rest of the session dragged too.
One option to resolve this is the Tales of the Valiant luck system, replacing Inspiration. It gives you points when you miss that allows you to add bonuses to future attacks. So rarely will people continue to fail. It has drawbacks, it's another resource to manage for one. It's a bit of power creep too, but given it's creep to players who are failing rolls, it's not too bad.
@@garion046 Thanks. 15 years ago we were playing 3rd edition and using no meta currencies like Luck. We have since changed games and use a meta system using poker chips with different grades of effects/benefits.
Instead of having a long turn for each player sequentially which causes a lot of waiting, you can instead have all players decide what they want to do at the same time and then everyone rolls together
With the class revision topic, D&D with a classless system was achieved well by Mutants & Masterminds. It is enjoyable, but hard to approach - without class "silos" it feels like you have to know the whole book to develop the character concepts. Advanced Level Up 5e has a bit of that feeling of overwhelmed by choice with maneuvers as well.
RE: Players paying attention: Unfortunately, I don't see a one-size-fits-all solution to that issue. Players who are in the table for the roleplay would either not care for combat, or take more time than declaring their actions plus rolling their dice in their turn, allowing the other players' thoughts to wander off. Players finding the combat too easy or too frustrating would focus their thoughts elsewhere that's more entertaining or to not be frustrated respectively. This is something that everyone probably has to agree on at the start of the campaign, so players' expectation are set, and the DM have better control of player psychology in-session.
I think the monk's problem was less about 'feel bad' abilities, and more about not enough capacity to do the cool abilities. Well that and they literally can't compete against even remotely optimised builds of any class. Well barbarians scale badly too, but they start off a LOT better. I think the new monk is a good revision. I have no idea how strong it is, but it gives monks tools they can actually use for fun rather than worrying about ki all the time.
I will say on the issue of 4e forever combat, a pretty large issue is that the damage meta *is not* intuative on first read. Like 2/3 Striker powers are basicly trap options, and you gotta build to go up 2 points of damage per PC per Level. In general, doing multiple attacks in one turn (either by AoE or multi-taps, + Action point usage), stacking as much flat damage as possible, and using a +3 proficiancy weapon (they didnt properly balance the damage vs accuracy divide on weapons). More dice
@PearseNation Doesn't that mean monks try to stun every attack? With no downside? So monsters are just stunned all the time? I guess you could tune your encounters around that, but it sounds a bit strong to me.
RE: monk I’m a big wuxia fan, in movie and comic book form. I haven’t delved into the novels much. And the monk has always been a problem for me as it is a strange insertion of East Asian culture into Western Fantasy. Most typically Gen Xers like me wanted to chuck the monk because it “didn’t fit,” but I wanted to chuck the rest of D&D and play a proper wuxia game. So it’s kind of an opposite than usual complaint. Personally, I think there are a few ways to go, the MCDM way, with the Null, kind of combining psionics + complete eschewing of tools. Achieving a new vibe on an old thing that fits the genre better. Doesn’t have to be this particular vibe, but it establishes it’s own space that way. Just play a game trying to do kung fu precisely, like Feng Shui and skip D&D. 3rd option is something Cypher System did, which is establish Wuxia Mode. If you don’t want to give up on D&D. They added a layer so that it would feel more like a wuxia movie. It applied to ALL classes. That can be done with D&D if someone wants to make the effort. *** But if you just want to fix the monk, I find the Rogue and the Battlemaster fighter are better mechanical models for how to feel effective as a monk. I like rogues a lot, tend to play them. One of the things I love about them is the lack of resource tracking. I don’t have to weigh my options if THIS is the time to use a ki point or not. I have a bonus action free, I choose between off-hand attack and cunning action, I just do it. Flurry of blows most typically ends up flurry of misses for me, which is a bit dull. If you just stole rogue sneak attack and reflavored flurry of blows it’d be more fun. You could do a higher level of flurry of blows (whirlwind attack), enemies who are base to base w/PC make dex save or take flurry of blows damage, 1/2 if they save. I dunno it just feels more fun. I’d eliminate stunning strike as it seems to become the central practice of the monk thus making the flavorful things done rarely. I did 4 elements monk, once, I blew tons of ki on elemental attacks, enemies saved 100% of the time, doing 0 damage. I could’ve just punched them and done better. Flavor was always the wrong choice. I dunno if tweaks can fix it for me.
they should just distinguish between basic classes, hard classes, and wtf classes. Classes for fast, fun combat: Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Cleric, Paladin, Warlock Classes to roll more eyes than dice: Monk, Wizard, Druid Do not ever, under any circumstances, play these classes: Bard, Sorcerer
Spirit guardians invoke duplicity doesn't sound too bad. Requires bonus action to move. Reminder: moving the spirit guardians over enemies does not do damage, only when they move into the spirit guardians. If there is no reason to enter the area, then enemies would not enter the area. Also, use more ranged enemies.
It's also when they start their turn there. And monsters rarely get to move off turn. Spirit guardians is good on a cleric just standing in the middle. An invulnerable thing in the middle? Ugh. That said, the problem isn't Trickery domain. It's spirit guardians!
Save-or-sucks / fail-or-suckI had the mbmg keep blasting the wisdom saves off my bard's save-or-suck control shutdowns last week. I finally realized OH YEAH I'M ALSO A GREAT SUPPORT GUY and ran through the minions taking two or three AoOs to give improved invisibility to our pally who had been getting hammered, resulting in her not just surviving but hitting more and critting off one of their advantaged attacks. Had more effect just making her more awesome than I did with three failed spells. Then I bamfed around a couple times with dimension door saving a couple other players from near-certain-death.
Having played a monk... yes the monk had serious problems. You had too few Ki points to properly play through the combat loop. It was especially galling when the rogue could do dash or disengage without resource cost. WotC changed this. Good. Stunning Strike was nerfed - limited to 1/turn. The advantage and slow were to soften the blow of the nerf; I don't think it was done to remove the feel bad aspect of failure.
Moonbeam sounds like when some bigger youtubers go on leave and have guests do videos on their channel to maintain the algorithm. Interesting idea, hopefully it means creators can have more choice and balance.
I can see how Invoke Duplicity without concentration could be more annoying. Though I have to wonder if Ben forgot to consider that the Cleric must use their own senses, so if they hide around a corner they'll need to peek around to see the battlefield to be able to direct the illusion or target enemies with other spells. As for the new version they didn't say much about it. I have to wonder what the illusion section in the rules glossary might have to say, however. Since they have spoken about standardizing a lot of the rules around illusions. It very well might be possible to attack the illusion now, or have some other remedy. I guess we'll see.
Y'all need to check out Kevin Crawford's work. Stars Without Number is a more digestible RPG that hits on Travellers niche, and it has an expansion for running galactic wars.
Did this guy even read what Deflect Attack does? Should your character reduce the damage from an attack to zero, they have the option to impose a dex save on an opponent within five feet that does two rolls of the martial arts die plus the dex mod. It doesn't matter if it was a 2d4 attack that was reduced to zero or a 2d12 attack that was reduced to zero, the deflection damage remains exactly the same.
I think he was objecting to the concept that it would cause more rolls, hence slowing combat. However I agree that it is far more circumstantial than implied. But mostly I agree with James that generally these changes are really mild and not as big of a deal as their commentary implies.
If you want sci-fi rpgs, there are several options. For D&D Mage Hand Press came out with a 5e space opera setting book called Dark Matter. Back in the 3e days, a third-party publisher put out several books for a space opera setting called Dragon Star. There's a skill points based space smugglers and mercs game called Traveler. Cypher System put out The Stars Are Fire, which acts as a campaign setting but is full of tools and guidelines for running sci-fi in any system. Stars Without Number is a great book that has its own game system but really stands out for all the tools it has for populating a galaxy map sandbox. Or just watch your favorite sci-fi series and write down a list of the major conflicts in each episode, a list of odd features for each of the planets the show visits, and a list of enemy factions you want to use. Sort those three lists into three of more random tables and roll them all together to find out what is happening on any planet your players visit.
Okay, "Redo everything from the ground up" is tempting, but if that's too broad for the remit of the opening question, I go back to my old standby: Give the half-caster Warlock from the early OneD&D playtests a few more passes, you cowards! We've got a Divine half-caster in the Paladin and a Primal half-caster in the Ranger, but unless the Artificer becomes a core class whoch is anathema to WOTC, we have no Arcane half-caster in the core classes for some reason, just *FOUR* Arcane full-casters.
In the game I run, I created a warforged necromancer that masquerades as a ventriloquist dummy. He travels with a barrel of pickle juice to preserve the “bards” that he raises with Animate Dead. His MO is to create a new bard periodically, dumping the body of the old one. When he creates it, he severs the hand (that appears to be inside the puppet), which he then controls as a crawling claw. He doesn’t dump the claws. He uses a team of claws to loot rooms during his performances.
On the topic of the monk, first I'll say that the changes to stunning strike actually help the situation of putting times between turns not hurt. Just think about which of these takes more time "I attack, give me a con save for stunning strike... Ok, nothing happens. I attack, stunning strike again, give me another con save... ok, it still didn't work. Flurry of blows, attack, stunning strike, make another con save... ok, still nothing. Second flurry of blows attack, stunning strike again, con save... still passes? Ok, that's my full turn. By the way, I'm out of ki points, can we short rest after this?" Or "I attack, second attack with my once per turn stunning strike... they pass the save? Ok the next attack still has advantage against them, bonus action dodge, the rogue is next with advantage on their first attack."
The second thing I'll say is how can anyone complain about martials getting more options in combat? The monk having to choose between damage, shoving, and grappling is still nothing compared to a wizard having to choose between all the spells in their very thick book.
Is the problem for the monk that it's power-level graph is basically a straight line, whereas other classes are either frontloaded as being powerful at lower levels but relatively less so at higher levels (rogue) or weak little baby children that grow into absolute killing machines (wizards)? For me it seems like the monk is one of the only classes that starts powerful with multiattack (flurry of blows), being nearly impossible to hit (unarmored defense and deflect missiles), then up into the higher levels they can absolutely shut down a boss fight with stunning strike, magical unarmed strikes, etc.
I kind of get what they mean by not wanting certain abilities to become more complex and make the game slower, but that's just what you get with D&D. The Champion is the easiest, most simple class out there, but people playing a fighter don't pick the Champion, they pick the Battle Master or the Eldritch Knight. More tactical options has always been the prerogative in D&D. I mean, I love the change to Unarmed Strikes, and I don't think it made the game slower or more complex at all. You still have the same three options available to you: Grapple, Shove, or deal damage. But now they all filter through the same mechanic of landing an unarmed strike. In order to make the game simpler you would just need to remove options, which I don't think would be great.
21:42 what is pacing? Is pacing rounds per minute? Or is pacing the ratio of players playing vs players watching? I see the troll reaction situation as amazing. Especially if the whole table is discussing. Cuz that means the players are plying even when it’s not their turn!
I’m totally in the dark about Monk complaints. My players have played Monks a lot and been some of the top fighters on the team, and it’s always been good :\
It really depends on your table. If you play at lower levels, with shorter combats and plenty of short rests, monks are pretty good. I've done this, it's fine. BUT if you don't play that way, OR if you have a more optimisers heavy table, it's... very subpar. Just by the numbers.
Ive been playing 5e since it released, and 5e being the "fast" edition, is a myth. It was never that. out of 3/3.5, 4 and 5th edition dnd, 4th edition was actually the fastest combat.
The least fun part of a failure result is when it makes you feel like it would have been better to just not do the cool thing instead of the optimal thing that you do every fight. Spells that deal damage to an area over time almost always work and allow for melee characters to use their forced movement or grappling skills to their peak potential but it gets old.
Growing up, the rpgs always had a class system. I was already an adult by the time classless "heroes" started happening. I gotta say i prefer a defined class over no class at all. Don't get me wrong, i do like custom characters, but games fall short of properly supporting the type of character i'm drawn to make. Think the Final Fantasy 1 Red mage, the first "gish" of videogames done right. So many games make if to where if you are not specialized in some way, it's unnecessarily more challenging.
Partial successes and failures and other window dressings are for experienced GMs. It puts a lot of extra work on the GM until they are used to doing it. But what if they never get to be that kiind of GM? Well, I guess they will stop running games or find a different system. I say keep it simple, and experienced GMs will know when to put that in and when not to.
So Shawn Merwin would do away with classes to make them extremely complicated for new players to use. For all the people who don't play wizard because there are just too many spells, this could be every single class. Cool.
I'm @6:07 minutes in & it sounds like you are talking about the Call of Cthulhu rules I played in, the 2 campaigns I played within that game, one of which was Dark Fantasy.
Feel like a lot of the DnD 2024 discussion is a bit rage baity. Its fair to criticize, but tbh theres been a lot of good changes imo. And mostly minor overall though; James is right when he says its a bit mountains out of molehills. And I'm not WotC fan, I stopped buying their stuff last year. But I still run 5e because damn it they don't own me. I think this has been overly harsh on the 2024 rules though.
Monk a problem, its was by "the problem" of all classes in 5e by far... sry they truly needed fixing and they now r good but then again they r not a paladin for martials
Sean was making a mountain out of a molehill. If deflect attacks is slowing your game that’s a dm/player issue nothing wrong with the rules, you could use that argument about shield or uncanny attacks as well but that’s just lazy
The extra part of the feature doesn't come up nearly as often as he implies. It's no worse that a Battlemaster's riposte or a Sentinel's reaction attack.
I think it is a bit weird to say that monk had cultural issues that were solved using cultural consultants when we never discuss what the parameters are for whether or not something is culturally insensitive and how then the remedy is being judged. I feel like the implementation of cultural consultants is a strangely opaque process for something that has become suddenly ubiquitous. If I am being honest I haven't once seen any indication that people from China and Japan find western depictions of monks in media to be offensive, and in many cases they happen to also depict monks similarly. So if we don't know how they determined that people of that region actually take issue with the depiction how do we know the solution worked?
I feel like 2024 5e is overly focusing on avoiding feel bad moments which may end up to every class feeling Just Fine instead of Exciting. I much prefer design that focuses on feel good moments even if it comes with some constraints (see MCDM's Beastheart class which is able to do some downright absurd stuff at the cost of some risk and setup time)
@@synmad3638 Which incidentally something I like about the DC20 design philosophy: if your class/subclass has access to reaction moves, you can use as many as you have action points for during the other turns. (The balance being that, if you used 2 reactions, you will start your own turn with only 2 actions left out of your usual 4 🙂) That greatly entices the players to pay more attention to what the rest of the party/the foes are doing. 👍
It's weird that you guys lament that players don't pay attention during other people's turns, but when the system gives them REASONS to pay attention on other people's turns, Shawn complains. I sense that Shawn doesn't like D&D combat, and runs perfunctory 3 round combats so he can move on with the story. He's often taking jabs at tactical players. His whole attitude towards the new edition has been contemptuous. It's really annoying.
I don't think there is a null result when a player's spell doesn't work on a monster, after all, if that is going to make the monster act another turn then there isn't a null result.
Listening to so many of these bad takes on monk has made me really not a child of peace. Having played so much monk before and playtest, it is so much more fun and not at all slow.
The way these discussions always go, it seems most of you don't like DnD, so why talk about it other than negativity money? Let me know if I'm oversensitive. The good things seem unimportant or bad to you, and the bad parts seem critical. The worst part is this seeming ignorance around why people actually like this game. D&D is popular for a reason, and it's not just marketing or legacy, it's actually fun with designs and stories people like. You come off as pretentious when you ignore or dismiss that. There are many games that cover the designs and choices that many of you seem to prefer, so please research and play those games and talk to us about them with joy instead of whatever look down your nose nonsense this is. I really like this group, but this feels like mean girls, where people are having fun being catty in a circle.
The dismay and exhaustion in James' voice when I pulled out puppet Mildred is sending me 😂
Dael, I caught your tune, and I love it more than anything. 🌟
I wonder if anyone else watching caught it. :)
Sending you where?
@@angelalewis3645 😉
I loved James' reaction, just the 'but why... why though' vibe.
But seriously Dael, you need an exorcism. That thing has gotta be a night hag’s voodoo doll or something.
@@chrisg8989 Indianapolis. James's existential dread was so great it coalesced into legal tender and purchased Dael's tickets to GenCon.
As a DM who had a monk player in a party of non monks, the power imbalance was obvious, especially if they couldn't take a short rest after 1/2 combats. The stunning strike is whatever, but being able to do so many cool maneuvers and just making them better with ki is really going to boost the monk
20:34 dang Bob pay attention!
Hahahaha 😂😂😂 shots fired.
Hahaha! 😂
The monk's new features seem a lot better to realize the fantasy of a hero who trained to be fast and use their own bodies in defensive and offensive ways. It was lagging behind mechanically and that was improved. Simple as that.
Also it sounds a lot more fun than before. About the deflect attack feature, maybe the first few times it's used PCs will think a bit more, but as they get used to the feature I doubt it will slow the game more. Plus monk players will have more fun and the potential for more group fun is increased, since the very description of a monk deflecting in battle can be awesome.
Of course, if the group is the maximizer type none of this matters and everything will be about numbers and perfect strategy anyway.
Personally I’m really happy with the monk changes. I’ve always thought deflect missiles should work for melee attacks. It fits my idea of the fantasy much better. I hear what you’re saying in potentially making the turn longer, but a monk had such little complexity that I don’t think it’s a big add. Their turns are still super fast compared to every other class.
Could not disagree more on monk. The new changes are absolutely better than old 2014 monk. The nerf to stunning strike hurts, but if it's the cost for the rest of the class actually working well and being interesting then I'm fine with that. I also fail to see how a reaction to reduce damage would significantly increase turn time and slow down the game, as 5E monks usually have extremely short turn times and even with this change are definitly still going to have shorter turns that most spellcasters.
I had just about abandoned an entire rework of 5e ive been working on over the last 18 months, until i saw this. I just thought there may not have been apetite for a custom build class system and the abolishment of Levels being replaced by a power score. I literally thousands of pages of the RPG that I just though wasnt worth going ahead with, with MCDM and DC20 and One Dnd being released. But appears where some others have missed the mark, I may have hit it on the mark while remaining completely compatible with 5e and One Dnd. My Faith has been restored in my project, thank you
6:00 My man Ben out here describing Shadow of the Demon Lord by Rob Schwab word by word
I was just thinking that
I was thinking that as Ben was talking. I just didn't get a chance to say it.
Shadow of the demon lord/weird wizard need better/any marketing. Schwab's work is so good and he is so prolific
A lot of the stuff in OSR too, or DCC as I understand it.
Yeah, Shadow of the Weird Wizard handles spell casting even better than SotDL and fits right into the heroic fantasy niche of D&D, too. I'm so confused it doesn't have more buzz!
Appreciate the tips for my question! Already investigating those options :D
Agree with Sean re the new fantasy game. Just have traits that you can select. Doesn't mean a particular GM couldn't have archetypes, these could then just be lists of selected traits you take at specific levels (this is how the system I writing myself is happening)
My first DND character was a monk, pre Tasha's so I was locked into racial ability scores. I played an Orc because I thought they were neat. I had a few 14s and maybe a 16 in my core ability scores. I missed a lot, went down every combat, and overall couldn't really do anything. The only time I did well with him was a bunch of crits on a flurry right before he died permanently. I never landed a successful stunning strike. He died at level 7 during the fight that brought us to level 8
Unsatisfying failure is a frustrating problem because it doesn't seem like a hard solution to conceive or implement. The lack of something happening in human perception is anathema to happiness. Customers report higher satisfaction when waiting in the same or longer lines if there is some interaction/progress in their perception. Just make SOMETHING happen on failures in all cases. Either a "failure token" type mechanic/resource or just eliminate null results from abilities. Negative results that penalize the player might even be received better.
8:35 if you have a whole monk party, the problems aren’t obvious. But they are compounded upon with other classes in the party, because monks can’t compete in the damage front. They can, however, perform interesting non combat maneuvers. Unfortunately, many games don’t have anything interesting to do that’s not killing monsters.
Warning: Jump scare at 3:08
55:26 Stars Without Number would be a great option for this!
The problem with monk has, for several editions, always been ribbon abilities.
They get "keyword" class features at almost every level, but the early level features are all things other classes get to do for free while the monk has to spend points. The mid level features are things other classes got five to ten levels earlier. Then, all the late level features are either ribbon abilities, 2nd level spells that might as well be ribbon abilities, or actually thematic and flavorful high level spells that are locked behind half their points to use.
Want to fix the monk? Nerf or get rid of stunning strike, take the ki point costs off all the base class features, and move features other classes get at level 3 up the level chart so monks get them before level 17.
Honestly I think the new monk solves at least some of that.
i think shawn over estimates how much time these new abilities will add. they replace abilities that took a lot of time. like deflect missiles was a really weird ability, always have to look it up to make sure im using it right. letting monks shove/grapple with unarmed attack is just the same as doing it with an attack action that's already in the rules.
sometimes the new rules will potentially make the turns longer but there are other factors to think about. like what rules are they replacing? do the new rules make those classes more likely to be played? like maybe the new monk players would of played casters which also make turns take longer. this is a recurring complaint when talking about the new rules, i get you guys dont have time to go super deep on these rule changes but if it's gonna be the same complaints every time without deeper thought, id rather you just skip it
^^^^ This. They added some, and they've streamlined others.
The game doesn't look like it will be taking any longer than it already does, or any quicker really.
Shawn is heavily on the side of keeping mechanics as simple as possible as his favored style of game and not particularly into crunchy tactical combat, though I don't think he's opposed to it. Honestly D&D is not his ideal game by any means. I think a simpler, more narrative oriented game is more his flavor in the same way Ben always gravitates to all things grim, dark, and gritty.
Having said that I do feel like the new content is biased towards players and in some cases does complicate the DM's job maybe a bit more than necessary, though there have been improvements for the DM in other areas. We'll have to wait and see.
@@MannonMartin Shawn's preference is perfectly valid. He is an experienced dnd game designer though. So when he makes a claim that the new rules are going to slow things down even more without taking into consideration other factors, like how much a class is played, old complicated rules being simplified, etc, it's not a very good opinion.
the new content is biased towards players, theyve been heavily focused on the players handbook. once the dmg and monster manual come out, itll be easier to tell if theyve made it easier for DM's or not.
@@TonyRobetson Of course Shawn's preferences are valid. I was not suggesting otherwise, merely pointing out his particular point of view and how that tends to color his reaction to WotC's changes as any of our personal preferences ultimately will.
As for player facing vs DM facing rules I don't think we actually have to wait for the DMG at all, because the actual core game rules are all in the PHB. The DMG is more of a guide and set of tools optionally available to the DM. The game rules themselves are mostly in the PHB because both the DM and players need a common set of expectations, and WotC doesn't waste pages reprinting the same content in the DMG for the most part.
So we should see more soon when the NDA on the preview copies of the PHB is lifted on August 1st. I have seen that there actually are lots of DM facing changes in addition to the player facing stuff, so it could actually be pretty balanced even if they left in a few abilities that are biased towards players. Overall I think it's fine, and it's not really DM's vs players. Many of the changes are great for both players and DMs.
@@MannonMartin i said Shawn's views are valid because i was agreeing with you and to try to make it clear that i wasnt against his views in general, just some of his criticisms
15:30 Dragonbane comes to mind when it comes to not a lot of stuff to do and quick combat but in the great way
On the discussion with the "speed" of combat: Shawn talked about the number of considerations per moment increasing, and that making combat slower. While I understand the point, I actually like the increased engagement it causes, because you feel excited about using all your options. However, it does mean that if it's not a player's turn they have to wait around, making the length of combat feel slow.
A way to design abilities to alleviate this issue could be giving all characters reactive abilities that help other players on their turn or when things happen to them. In my experience, my party mates feel engaged when everyone can contribute on a turn. Sometimes with abilities, but also just like, discussion. We all talk about what to do on a turn and provide input on tactical options, without forcing a player to play a certain way. This makes the long-ass combats feel eventful, and not boring.
54:53 Lancer is great, Stars Without Number, Starfinder, Dark Matter, and Coriolis
I think the point on stunning strike was all wrong. The slow+ effect on a fail is part of a nerf to the ability, not a buff or trying to remove a null result. In 2014, one used to be able to make 4 stunning strikes a round and churn through legendary resistance. The slow+ is merely a consolation prize by comparison.
Speaking as a DM, monks felt not strong enough to add extra creatures to encounters, but too broken to only have one creature. It might feel bad as a player, but it was bad design for combat when you can effectively permanently stop the boss from doing anything while everyone attacks with advantage. So nerfing it was 100% the right play, and making sure the ki point wasn’t “wasted” ultimately makes the monk not feel as Ability score dependent to be okay.
It was a lateral move. Monks can nova and burn all their Ki for a Great moment or a giant nothing burger moment and then have no more ki and suck till the next rest. This means you can't break an encounter on a success but totally waste a turn and ALL your resources on a failure.
This evens things out. It needs the encounter breaking win and buffs the feels bad failure condition
19:00 James, carrying the banner for DH! I totally agree with him. And, with DH, because there is no set turn order, if someone totally fails they can act again (with the consent of their teammates)!
I love Shawn, but the Monk was not fine. It was absolutely terrible. The problems were very real.
The new Monk is much, much better. It can now be played alongside the other classes at higher levels without making the player feel useless. It can now actually do the things it was intended to do all these years.
Exactly.
The Monk was clearly a broken class &, after Tasha mostly fixed the Ranger, by far the worst there was. 🤷🏻♂️
couldnt agree more - shocked that theres still disagreement about this.
@@KamasiFitzgeraldSean always starts from "what do the players want" and if what the players really want is to stun enemies and feel very powerful as the players can act but the enemies cannot rather than have a more fair tactical combat then that's the game that that table should play
@@torinmccabe sure, I guess? Those tables are of course free to use the 2014 monk. Me and my table are absolutely loving the more tactical monk we saw in the play tests. There's truly no comparison for us, and as we've discussed it at length there's been not even an ounce of regret or nostalgia for the old monk, so it was surprising to hear anyone go to bat for it
In a party of all monks, they are fine. The DM knows about stunning, and it's like having a party of wizards in the sense of tons of hard CC. And they aren't playing the weekend class in the party
BTW, you can dispel a trickery cleric's duplicate because Dispel Magic works on magical effects.
I get that but when I DM i personally dont like to dispel a PC's class or sublclass abilities unless they are disruptive.
Just dispel the spirit guardians. That's the real issue here.
I have 8 to 10 players so the "wait what's happening now" is real. The only solution i have found is to have dynamic enemies that can attack them at any moment.
As a new class, I'd love a no-magic support class.
As someone who played a monk from 1 to 20 across, 2 years, these changes are great. I had to find my own ways to keep up to every other character in the party. Nothing in my kit was enough for combat. Stunning strike did nothing often. Damage was bad. I had to get rare magic items to keep my gameplay even vaguely powerful. I leaned into movement to try and keep some utility.
@6:00 Who can say? The historical Record! You can't hide behind your meditative "child of peace" state! You know what you did!!!
@9:00 Feel bad moments? Yes for the Monk. If you made the tactical decision to unload as much of your Ki as possible to get that stun and it didn't happen because of Legendary Resistance or even Dice rolls, yes. That is a Feel Bad Moment (that extends to rest of this combat and the next combat because I have no resources left). And I know DM's are like Stunning Strike is too much, but frankly, it's not, unless you have more than one monk in the party. I'm pissed off that we don't have Damage on a save any more - that would have been easier than what they decided to do. That would justify all the Save for Half spells out there (because that is NOT a feel bad moment).
@13:00 New version Stunning Strike should have been damage on save just like all the other spells like it... Justify the "Save for Half" mechanic on all those spells. Imagine all those save or NOTHING cantrips like Word of Radiance or Sacred Flame that would at least do SOMETHING. We even have weapons that SOME do damage on a Miss now (Weapon Mastery)! Think about that healer that did Word of Radiance in Deathhouse while surrounded by Shadows and NONE of them took damage and the Healer is DOWN! Half an hour later your Strahd campaign is over due to TPK.
@23:00 Sub 5th level monk is Under Powered compared to the RANGER (not even a GloomStalker). That should tell you everything! The problem is it's not limited to sub 5th level and this has been proven on spreadsheets!
The ironic thing is that, if D&D 2024 was a video game, I think it’d have the feeling of a live service moving into a “so powerful that we speed clear everything instantly” mode, but because it’s not, that’s all just “more stuff that’ll take longer to resolve”.
I really like the new monk? It:
-does a little more damage constantly.
-can do it's Cool Stuff more often (both with more DPs and more flexible use of the Deflect ability).
-is more consistently mobile so you don't need to multiclass rogue
-can ACTUALLY remove the Charmed condition now (that feature was nigh useless before because it required an action and most abilities that caused you to become Charmed also required you to use your Action on XYZ).
-gets meaningfully better at Level 10 rather than falling behind the other martials.
-isn't tactically obligated to spend all its resources on stunning strike.
Which really covers most of my criticisms of the class as it previously stood (subclasses aside and they look much better too). I know it was previously (and may still be) technically underpowered, but unlike the ranger it at least felt very cool to play and got some sick moments that honestly made it feel more fun than more technically powerful classes like Fighter or Barbarian, and this new version looks to have made those moments more common and more impactful.
I had a game with 2 players. One session BOTH had trouble rolling higher than 8. It made a battle against 6 skeletons stretch out into nearly an hour. And they almost died. The rest of the session dragged too.
One option to resolve this is the Tales of the Valiant luck system, replacing Inspiration. It gives you points when you miss that allows you to add bonuses to future attacks. So rarely will people continue to fail.
It has drawbacks, it's another resource to manage for one. It's a bit of power creep too, but given it's creep to players who are failing rolls, it's not too bad.
@@garion046 Thanks. 15 years ago we were playing 3rd edition and using no meta currencies like Luck. We have since changed games and use a meta system using poker chips with different grades of effects/benefits.
Instead of having a long turn for each player sequentially which causes a lot of waiting, you can instead have all players decide what they want to do at the same time and then everyone rolls together
Was painting tabletop miniatures as Ben mentioned the bard of miniature painting - felt very seen!
With the class revision topic, D&D with a classless system was achieved well by Mutants & Masterminds.
It is enjoyable, but hard to approach - without class "silos" it feels like you have to know the whole book to develop the character concepts. Advanced Level Up 5e has a bit of that feeling of overwhelmed by choice with maneuvers as well.
RE: Players paying attention: Unfortunately, I don't see a one-size-fits-all solution to that issue. Players who are in the table for the roleplay would either not care for combat, or take more time than declaring their actions plus rolling their dice in their turn, allowing the other players' thoughts to wander off. Players finding the combat too easy or too frustrating would focus their thoughts elsewhere that's more entertaining or to not be frustrated respectively. This is something that everyone probably has to agree on at the start of the campaign, so players' expectation are set, and the DM have better control of player psychology in-session.
I think the monk's problem was less about 'feel bad' abilities, and more about not enough capacity to do the cool abilities.
Well that and they literally can't compete against even remotely optimised builds of any class. Well barbarians scale badly too, but they start off a LOT better.
I think the new monk is a good revision. I have no idea how strong it is, but it gives monks tools they can actually use for fun rather than worrying about ki all the time.
I will say on the issue of 4e forever combat, a pretty large issue is that the damage meta *is not* intuative on first read.
Like 2/3 Striker powers are basicly trap options, and you gotta build to go up 2 points of damage per PC per Level.
In general, doing multiple attacks in one turn (either by AoE or multi-taps, + Action point usage), stacking as much flat damage as possible, and using a +3 proficiancy weapon (they didnt properly balance the damage vs accuracy divide on weapons).
More dice
I hate feel bad moments personally. As a DM I usually homebrew them out.
In my games, a failed stun just doesn’t use the Ki point. Easy
@PearseNation Doesn't that mean monks try to stun every attack? With no downside? So monsters are just stunned all the time?
I guess you could tune your encounters around that, but it sounds a bit strong to me.
RE: monk
I’m a big wuxia fan, in movie and comic book form. I haven’t delved into the novels much. And the monk has always been a problem for me as it is a strange insertion of East Asian culture into Western Fantasy.
Most typically Gen Xers like me wanted to chuck the monk because it “didn’t fit,” but I wanted to chuck the rest of D&D and play a proper wuxia game. So it’s kind of an opposite than usual complaint.
Personally, I think there are a few ways to go, the MCDM way, with the Null, kind of combining psionics + complete eschewing of tools. Achieving a new vibe on an old thing that fits the genre better. Doesn’t have to be this particular vibe, but it establishes it’s own space that way.
Just play a game trying to do kung fu precisely, like Feng Shui and skip D&D.
3rd option is something Cypher System did, which is establish Wuxia Mode. If you don’t want to give up on D&D. They added a layer so that it would feel more like a wuxia movie. It applied to ALL classes. That can be done with D&D if someone wants to make the effort.
***
But if you just want to fix the monk, I find the Rogue and the Battlemaster fighter are better mechanical models for how to feel effective as a monk.
I like rogues a lot, tend to play them. One of the things I love about them is the lack of resource tracking. I don’t have to weigh my options if THIS is the time to use a ki point or not. I have a bonus action free, I choose between off-hand attack and cunning action, I just do it. Flurry of blows most typically ends up flurry of misses for me, which is a bit dull. If you just stole rogue sneak attack and reflavored flurry of blows it’d be more fun.
You could do a higher level of flurry of blows (whirlwind attack), enemies who are base to base w/PC make dex save or take flurry of blows damage, 1/2 if they save.
I dunno it just feels more fun.
I’d eliminate stunning strike as it seems to become the central practice of the monk thus making the flavorful things done rarely. I did 4 elements monk, once, I blew tons of ki on elemental attacks, enemies saved 100% of the time, doing 0 damage. I could’ve just punched them and done better. Flavor was always the wrong choice.
I dunno if tweaks can fix it for me.
Yeah yeah! I like all of your ideas!
they should just distinguish between basic classes, hard classes, and wtf classes.
Classes for fast, fun combat: Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Cleric, Paladin, Warlock
Classes to roll more eyes than dice: Monk, Wizard, Druid
Do not ever, under any circumstances, play these classes: Bard, Sorcerer
Spirit guardians invoke duplicity doesn't sound too bad. Requires bonus action to move. Reminder: moving the spirit guardians over enemies does not do damage, only when they move into the spirit guardians. If there is no reason to enter the area, then enemies would not enter the area. Also, use more ranged enemies.
It's also when they start their turn there. And monsters rarely get to move off turn.
Spirit guardians is good on a cleric just standing in the middle. An invulnerable thing in the middle? Ugh.
That said, the problem isn't Trickery domain. It's spirit guardians!
Save-or-sucks / fail-or-suckI had the mbmg keep blasting the wisdom saves off my bard's save-or-suck control shutdowns last week. I finally realized OH YEAH I'M ALSO A GREAT SUPPORT GUY and ran through the minions taking two or three AoOs to give improved invisibility to our pally who had been getting hammered, resulting in her not just surviving but hitting more and critting off one of their advantaged attacks. Had more effect just making her more awesome than I did with three failed spells. Then I bamfed around a couple times with dimension door saving a couple other players from near-certain-death.
puppet master from Naruto
Anyone else find Dael’s “I am a child of peace” song familiar?
ME. 🌟
Find my comment to her about it under her comment. I believe it confirms what I have suspected for months. 😉
❤
Having played a monk... yes the monk had serious problems. You had too few Ki points to properly play through the combat loop. It was especially galling when the rogue could do dash or disengage without resource cost. WotC changed this. Good. Stunning Strike was nerfed - limited to 1/turn. The advantage and slow were to soften the blow of the nerf; I don't think it was done to remove the feel bad aspect of failure.
A Bard of miniature painting is just college of creation
Moonbeam sounds like when some bigger youtubers go on leave and have guests do videos on their channel to maintain the algorithm.
Interesting idea, hopefully it means creators can have more choice and balance.
Esper Genesis is wonderful
I can see how Invoke Duplicity without concentration could be more annoying. Though I have to wonder if Ben forgot to consider that the Cleric must use their own senses, so if they hide around a corner they'll need to peek around to see the battlefield to be able to direct the illusion or target enemies with other spells. As for the new version they didn't say much about it. I have to wonder what the illusion section in the rules glossary might have to say, however. Since they have spoken about standardizing a lot of the rules around illusions. It very well might be possible to attack the illusion now, or have some other remedy. I guess we'll see.
Y'all need to check out Kevin Crawford's work. Stars Without Number is a more digestible RPG that hits on Travellers niche, and it has an expansion for running galactic wars.
Did this guy even read what Deflect Attack does? Should your character reduce the damage from an attack to zero, they have the option to impose a dex save on an opponent within five feet that does two rolls of the martial arts die plus the dex mod. It doesn't matter if it was a 2d4 attack that was reduced to zero or a 2d12 attack that was reduced to zero, the deflection damage remains exactly the same.
I think he was objecting to the concept that it would cause more rolls, hence slowing combat. However I agree that it is far more circumstantial than implied.
But mostly I agree with James that generally these changes are really mild and not as big of a deal as their commentary implies.
Sorcerer is gonna be great with their new mage rage! The trickery domain cleric is the new echo knight.
Merwin’s ideal character system is Fabula Ultima.
If you want sci-fi rpgs, there are several options.
For D&D Mage Hand Press came out with a 5e space opera setting book called Dark Matter.
Back in the 3e days, a third-party publisher put out several books for a space opera setting called Dragon Star.
There's a skill points based space smugglers and mercs game called Traveler.
Cypher System put out The Stars Are Fire, which acts as a campaign setting but is full of tools and guidelines for running sci-fi in any system.
Stars Without Number is a great book that has its own game system but really stands out for all the tools it has for populating a galaxy map sandbox.
Or just watch your favorite sci-fi series and write down a list of the major conflicts in each episode, a list of odd features for each of the planets the show visits, and a list of enemy factions you want to use. Sort those three lists into three of more random tables and roll them all together to find out what is happening on any planet your players visit.
I had no idea about most of these. Thank you!
Okay, "Redo everything from the ground up" is tempting, but if that's too broad for the remit of the opening question, I go back to my old standby: Give the half-caster Warlock from the early OneD&D playtests a few more passes, you cowards! We've got a Divine half-caster in the Paladin and a Primal half-caster in the Ranger, but unless the Artificer becomes a core class whoch is anathema to WOTC, we have no Arcane half-caster in the core classes for some reason, just *FOUR* Arcane full-casters.
Latency is the perfect word. Oh man, I think it's the latency that really makes or breaks a game for me. 🎲💚
The USA has DnD stamps coming out next month
😮
The downside of stunning strike being a bit more complex is more than offset by it being only once per turn.
I live in the UK and I actually 'pre ordered' the D&D stamps in a nice little display case thing.
Only £20 or so, so not too bad.
The puppeteer class could have a necromancer subclass!
In the game I run, I created a warforged necromancer that masquerades as a ventriloquist dummy. He travels with a barrel of pickle juice to preserve the “bards” that he raises with Animate Dead. His MO is to create a new bard periodically, dumping the body of the old one. When he creates it, he severs the hand (that appears to be inside the puppet), which he then controls as a crawling claw. He doesn’t dump the claws. He uses a team of claws to loot rooms during his performances.
@@alysylum916 That is dark and complicated and AMAZING, and I LOVE IT.
thank you 😊
Sorcerer is gonna be great with their new mage rage!
On the topic of the monk, first I'll say that the changes to stunning strike actually help the situation of putting times between turns not hurt. Just think about which of these takes more time "I attack, give me a con save for stunning strike... Ok, nothing happens. I attack, stunning strike again, give me another con save... ok, it still didn't work. Flurry of blows, attack, stunning strike, make another con save... ok, still nothing. Second flurry of blows attack, stunning strike again, con save... still passes? Ok, that's my full turn. By the way, I'm out of ki points, can we short rest after this?" Or "I attack, second attack with my once per turn stunning strike... they pass the save? Ok the next attack still has advantage against them, bonus action dodge, the rogue is next with advantage on their first attack."
The second thing I'll say is how can anyone complain about martials getting more options in combat? The monk having to choose between damage, shoving, and grappling is still nothing compared to a wizard having to choose between all the spells in their very thick book.
Always good stuff. And funny!
Is the problem for the monk that it's power-level graph is basically a straight line, whereas other classes are either frontloaded as being powerful at lower levels but relatively less so at higher levels (rogue) or weak little baby children that grow into absolute killing machines (wizards)? For me it seems like the monk is one of the only classes that starts powerful with multiattack (flurry of blows), being nearly impossible to hit (unarmored defense and deflect missiles), then up into the higher levels they can absolutely shut down a boss fight with stunning strike, magical unarmed strikes, etc.
As a DM, I’ve had plenty of monks tank! If they have a good AC and run patient defense. Have a life cleric pumping heals into the party done.
How does a monk get good AC? Like 16 at level 1 is... fine, but it scales terribly and they don't get a shield.
I kind of get what they mean by not wanting certain abilities to become more complex and make the game slower, but that's just what you get with D&D. The Champion is the easiest, most simple class out there, but people playing a fighter don't pick the Champion, they pick the Battle Master or the Eldritch Knight. More tactical options has always been the prerogative in D&D. I mean, I love the change to Unarmed Strikes, and I don't think it made the game slower or more complex at all. You still have the same three options available to you: Grapple, Shove, or deal damage. But now they all filter through the same mechanic of landing an unarmed strike. In order to make the game simpler you would just need to remove options, which I don't think would be great.
21:42 what is pacing? Is pacing rounds per minute? Or is pacing the ratio of players playing vs players watching?
I see the troll reaction situation as amazing. Especially if the whole table is discussing. Cuz that means the players are plying even when it’s not their turn!
I’m totally in the dark about Monk complaints.
My players have played Monks a lot and been some of the top fighters on the team, and it’s always been good :\
It really depends on your table. If you play at lower levels, with shorter combats and plenty of short rests, monks are pretty good. I've done this, it's fine.
BUT if you don't play that way, OR if you have a more optimisers heavy table, it's... very subpar. Just by the numbers.
Ive been playing 5e since it released, and 5e being the "fast" edition, is a myth. It was never that. out of 3/3.5, 4 and 5th edition dnd, 4th edition was actually the fastest combat.
how about an episode focusae don all of the GOOD STUFF in the PHB 2024! :D
The least fun part of a failure result is when it makes you feel like it would have been better to just not do the cool thing instead of the optimal thing that you do every fight. Spells that deal damage to an area over time almost always work and allow for melee characters to use their forced movement or grappling skills to their peak potential but it gets old.
Growing up, the rpgs always had a class system. I was already an adult by the time classless "heroes" started happening. I gotta say i prefer a defined class over no class at all. Don't get me wrong, i do like custom characters, but games fall short of properly supporting the type of character i'm drawn to make. Think the Final Fantasy 1 Red mage, the first "gish" of videogames done right. So many games make if to where if you are not specialized in some way, it's unnecessarily more challenging.
Esper Genesis and Hyperlanes dovetail very well.
Hey hey we're the monk!
Partial successes and failures and other window dressings are for experienced GMs. It puts a lot of extra work on the GM until they are used to doing it. But what if they never get to be that kiind of GM? Well, I guess they will stop running games or find a different system. I say keep it simple, and experienced GMs will know when to put that in and when not to.
So Shawn Merwin would do away with classes to make them extremely complicated for new players to use. For all the people who don't play wizard because there are just too many spells, this could be every single class. Cool.
I'm @6:07 minutes in & it sounds like you are talking about the Call of Cthulhu rules I played in, the 2 campaigns I played within that game, one of which was Dark Fantasy.
Feel like a lot of the DnD 2024 discussion is a bit rage baity. Its fair to criticize, but tbh theres been a lot of good changes imo. And mostly minor overall though; James is right when he says its a bit mountains out of molehills.
And I'm not WotC fan, I stopped buying their stuff last year. But I still run 5e because damn it they don't own me. I think this has been overly harsh on the 2024 rules though.
All this talk of turns and failure makes you sound like dinosaurs. So many games fixed this decades ago!
Dael. No justice no peace.
Monk a problem, its was by "the problem" of all classes in 5e by far... sry they truly needed fixing and they now r good but then again they r not a paladin for martials
I disagree that failure has to be interesting. If everything has to be constantly interesting, it lowers the high points of play.
Sean was making a mountain out of a molehill. If deflect attacks is slowing your game that’s a dm/player issue nothing wrong with the rules, you could use that argument about shield or uncanny attacks as well but that’s just lazy
The extra part of the feature doesn't come up nearly as often as he implies.
It's no worse that a Battlemaster's riposte or a Sentinel's reaction attack.
I think it is a bit weird to say that monk had cultural issues that were solved using cultural consultants when we never discuss what the parameters are for whether or not something is culturally insensitive and how then the remedy is being judged. I feel like the implementation of cultural consultants is a strangely opaque process for something that has become suddenly ubiquitous. If I am being honest I haven't once seen any indication that people from China and Japan find western depictions of monks in media to be offensive, and in many cases they happen to also depict monks similarly. So if we don't know how they determined that people of that region actually take issue with the depiction how do we know the solution worked?
I feel like 2024 5e is overly focusing on avoiding feel bad moments which may end up to every class feeling Just Fine instead of Exciting. I much prefer design that focuses on feel good moments even if it comes with some constraints (see MCDM's Beastheart class which is able to do some downright absurd stuff at the cost of some risk and setup time)
Maybe players need to be less narcissistic and pay attention to something besides their own turn.
in my experience 5e's design doesnt give players much reason to take into consideration what the rest of the party does in combat
@@synmad3638
Which incidentally something I like about the DC20 design philosophy: if your class/subclass has access to reaction moves, you can use as many as you have action points for during the other turns.
(The balance being that, if you used 2 reactions, you will start your own turn with only 2 actions left out of your usual 4 🙂)
That greatly entices the players to pay more attention to what the rest of the party/the foes are doing. 👍
RE: Add new or modify existing classes: Give us the warlord! Give us the shaman! Give us the 4e psionics! You're allowed to steal from yourself, WotC!
It's weird that you guys lament that players don't pay attention during other people's turns, but when the system gives them REASONS to pay attention on other people's turns, Shawn complains. I sense that Shawn doesn't like D&D combat, and runs perfunctory 3 round combats so he can move on with the story. He's often taking jabs at tactical players. His whole attitude towards the new edition has been contemptuous. It's really annoying.
I don't think there is a null result when a player's spell doesn't work on a monster, after all, if that is going to make the monster act another turn then there isn't a null result.
Listening to so many of these bad takes on monk has made me really not a child of peace. Having played so much monk before and playtest, it is so much more fun and not at all slow.
Lorecast with a bad take on Monks? Shocking
The way these discussions always go, it seems most of you don't like DnD, so why talk about it other than negativity money? Let me know if I'm oversensitive.
The good things seem unimportant or bad to you, and the bad parts seem critical. The worst part is this seeming ignorance around why people actually like this game. D&D is popular for a reason, and it's not just marketing or legacy, it's actually fun with designs and stories people like. You come off as pretentious when you ignore or dismiss that.
There are many games that cover the designs and choices that many of you seem to prefer, so please research and play those games and talk to us about them with joy instead of whatever look down your nose nonsense this is.
I really like this group, but this feels like mean girls, where people are having fun being catty in a circle.
Sorcerer is gonna be great with their new mage rage! The trickery domain cleric is the new echo knight.
Sorcerer is gonna be great with their new mage rage!